EN World Gamestore - Review Question

[BrooklynKnight]

For myself, it was an optics issue. That's not why I placed reviews here, however that said I have no problem with the ENGS and there are a couple things there that I'm looking to pick up soon. I like writing reviews and was one of the people that was writing reviews as part of Crothian's pdf review project. I would have liked to continue to support all publishers through that project but will follow Morrus's request not to post any review since he was very willing to consider mine.

Right. "optics"

I think you're being hipocritical. I also think that your undermining of Morrus' forum rule that publishers not post links to their product in their press release is pretty blatant and wrong. It goes against the spirit of the forum and the rule. Spitefull behavior like that will cause other rules to change in the long run.

I think its pretty clear that you have some kind of grudge or gripe with ENW/ENGS, idealogical or otherwise. If you didnt then you wouldnt be asking your reviews to be removed, or following publishers tailcoats to post links for them.

In fact, I think press releases should be contained posts that dont allow replies within them. *discussion of the product should take place in general* But thats just my opinion.

 

[Eosin the Red]

In fact, I think press releases should be contained posts that dont allow replies within them. *discussion of the product should take place in general* But thats just my opinion.

Good thing you aren't paid to do the thinking round here, nor the public relations.

I think it is odd to have your reviews removed but equally odd is your hostile and aggressive attitude. It should be EXPECTED that lots of folks will have issues with ENWGS -- it is a change in direction and policy for ENworld. Change = Discomfort and that means that folks will buck for awhile. Attacking people for what is a normal human reaction when you have zero investment smacks of .... something and it ain't pleasant.

Everytime ENWorld changes it ruffles feathers... there are lots of us, so that means lots of ruffled feathers. That doesn't make the discontented unwelcome, it means that they will take a while to settle into the new routine. Just part of the ENWorld experience.

PS - you obviously have the right to express yourself as does everyone else. Maybe you should start a rant about people who rant at the changes? This way you can vent your obvious frustrations without attacking a specific poster.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

I dont think I was hostile at all. Its fine that people chafe or feel discomfort. But Morrus is trying his best to make it work. I respect that. Things need to change, and he's trying to make it a painless transition while protecting the ability of his company to make money. He tried to make it easy by not restricting everyone from posting links. If someone follows a publisher around and posts links for them it smacks of disrespect and an intentional disregard for the rules.

If he doesnt agree with them he should protest/discuss them like everyone else.

If my original post apperars hostile, i appologize. Its not. Annoyed, yes. Hostile, no.

 

[TheLe]

Since when does RPGnow have RPGnet reviews integrated into their storefront? I've seen some publishers post links to reviews at RPGnet, and elsewhere, but that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

Rpgnow has linked Rpg.net reviews last year sometime, if memory serves.

If you try to have your own reviews removed from rpg.net, I would curious to see what they say.

Here, check out my book Synergy Artifacts on rpgnow.com. scroll down to the user reviews.

Notice that under Rpgnow user reviews, there are rpg.net reviews too. The link was made a while ago.

So, if you post on Rpg.net, you are also posting for rpgnow.com.

I don't see anything wrong with it. So there you go.

(this is handled automatically between Rpg.net and rpgnow)

~Le

 

[Roudi]

I honestly don't see why someone should be expected to assume that their copyrighted material is up for grabs simply because it's online. Should they be aware that it might happen? Yes. Should they be expected to allow it when it does? Not if they don't want to.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that my point was "he posted it, therefore he should have expected it to be used by others against his intentions." That was not what I said.

Yes, people who post anything online should expect that their work might be taken and used by others in a manner the original authors do not approve of. No, that does not mean that authors should do nothing when said possibility occurs. Man-thing was in the right to do what he did, and more reviewers should be consciousof who is using their reviews and how they are being used, so that they, the authors, can dictate their use.

I really didn't think I was that unclear in my previous posts. Ah well.

 

[trancejeremy]

When you submit a review to RPG.net, the form gives a legal disclaimer and you can choose to give them either full electronic rights or limited rights. Full means they can do whatever they want with it: send it to other sites, RSS feed, even put it on a disc and sell it. Now that I look, limited rights also includes use on websites by their "partners" which presumably would be RPGnow.

There was a similar case there where a frequent reviewer wanted his stuff deleted, and I think that rights stuff was part of the fall out from it.

Eh, personally, I think that a site will benefit from your reivew commercially in some way or another is sort of the point of submitting a review to a site. It's like an exhange. You spend the time writing the review and such, and in return for hosting it and getting the review read, the site gets to profit from it, either by ad traffic or in advertising.

 

[jdrakeh]

Since when does RPGnow have RPGnet reviews integrated into their storefront?

Since about a year ago, actually. As far as I know, though, the only reviews incorporated in such a manner are those that the author granted 'full electronic rights' to, per the PRGNet review submission form.

 

[jdrakeh]

You spend the time writing the review and such, and in return for hosting it and getting the review read, the site gets to profit from it, either by ad traffic or in advertising.

The funny thing is, of course, that the reviewer actually profits from it, too - albeit indirectly. I, for example, as a result of some RPGnet reviews being widely distributed, receive roughly $200 dollars worth of physical product anually for review (usually for private review in anticipation of a new edition and/or revision of an existing game). Why a reviewer would contest somebody publicizing their reviews if they're properly credited is beyond me (and, yes, I understand the intricacies of Copyright law).

 

[Bardsandsages]

The funny thing is, of course, that the reviewer actually profits from it, too - albeit indirectly. I, for example, as a result of some RPGnet reviews being widely distributed, receive roughly $200 dollars worth of physical product anually for review (usually for private review in anticipation of a new edition and/or revision of an existing game). Why a reviewer would contest somebody publicizing their reviews if they're properly credited is beyond me (and, yes, I understand the intricacies of Copyright law).

I've got a stack of books to review, myself. But mine are all fiction right now.

Book reviewers are part of the promotional machine. Publishers send me books, I write reviews and publish them on Amazon, epinions, clubreading, and other review sites. Consumers read the reviews and use them to make decisions. Publishers quote the reviews in publicity. And the added benefit for me, as a writer, is that the fact that THEY quote ME lends credibility to my own books. People enjoy a book I reviewed, they tend to think they will therefore enjoy my book and buy it.

It's all one big karmic cycle.

 

[trancejeremy]

Geeze, I feel bad. I mostly just get hate mail




(Joke. Now that I count, out of the 19 rpg things I've reviewed this year, 11 were review copies)